What happens when JSA changes their mind???

[whiteymet]

Hi Guys:

I am NOT an autograph collector. A friend has a Jackie Robinson autographed HOF postcard that he won from what I would consider a major/mid major auction house a few years back. It came with a JSA COA. See below. I have hidden personal info and the auction house who sold it info as well

He asked me to consign it to REA because I was taking some of my items to them. REA said they would resubmit to JSA. I asked why when there is already a COA from them. They replied, "sometimes they change their minds"! REA later notifies me just that. They are returning item for lack of authenticity after JSA examined it. I have no problem whatsoever with REA.

My main question is what recourse does my friend have from the initial auction house? What is JSA's policy if this happens?

Has this happened to any of you? If not what would you do if this situation happened to you?

Any info I can pass along to my friend would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Fred

[David Atkatz]

To put it bluntly, when they change their minds, you're shit out of luck.

[doug.goodman]

The people who get paid for their opinions, gotta luv em...

[keithsky]

That's why the whole TPA is a joke. Its authentic one time then the next it's not? Its all about money.

[Rookiemonster]

I thought that the Perez post card came out years after Jackie Robinson was deceased .

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

I thought that the Perez post card came out years after Jackie Robinson was deceased .

Dustin:

It's a HOF PC not a Perez. See photo in the first post

[mighty bombjack]

This is a very interesting situation.

First, I want to point out that this might not be the same postcard that was purchased originally. That's the thing with these auction LOAs, they are designed to be good for one purchase only and give peace of mind to the auction customer only. I have purchased items on eBay that came with one of these letters, but they are worthless and I have always thrown them away. Anything I purchase that has a full JSA will stay with that letter because some people love (demand) those and I imagine that the situation you describe wouldn't happen because the auction house wouldn't resubmit (I could be wrong about that; perhaps REA submits everything they are consigned regardless of previous letters). This is also why they push you to pay up afterward and upgrade to the full letter with a photo and all that. I think, but am unsure, that there is a time limit for upgrading, or maybe it has to be done before the item is sent? Has anyone ever asked for the upgrade but then been told that the item is no good? The auction house should refund in that case, but this one is less clear only because the auction house can claim that a switcher oo was made, I guess. Can this thing be definitively be photo matched to a catalog?

If it is the same item, we can say that JSA has made an error, either in this judgement or the previous one. The question is which one. I mean, isn't it desirable that an authenticator would reconsider and be willing to reverse a previous judgement? We would hope that the answer is always the same, but we know these companies use multiple authenticators, and some have to be better than others. The question is, how many times have they changed their minds on an item the other way?

Auction houses love the alphabets, don't they? These certs are like shields for them, they need make no judgements or be held liable for issues of authenticity because they lean on a third party. It certainly seems that if an auction house is going to say that they trust a company, they should trust them all of the time, even when the decision isn't in their favor.

If your friend can prove this is the same item (which shouldn't be that hard), it would seem that the auction house should either refund the purchase or stop using JSA.

Like I said, an interesting one.

[Mr. Zipper]

Like all humans, all authenticators make mistakes. No one has a 1000% batting average, including the outspoken members in this thread.

And, if an authenticator is good, he or she should always be learning. Yep... sometimes you learn to identify a deceptive fake style that may have slipped by in the past. Ideally, this is a very small percentage for credible authenticators, but only a fool or liar claims to be perfect.

I have no opinion if this Robinson is good or bad. But assuming it is suspect and JSA made a mistake the first time, should they continue to approve a style they now know is suspect?

How many of you think every professional judgement you ever made was 100% correct and given the opportunity would never change anything? Let's see a show of hands.

In full disclosure, I am a professional authenticator who gets paid to provide opinions <GASP>. JSA is one of my clients.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Like all humans, all authenticators make mistakes. No one has a 1000% batting average, including the outspoken members in this thread.

And, if an authenticator is good, he or she should always be learning. Yep... sometimes you learn to identify a deceptive fake style that may have slipped by in the past. Ideally, this is a very small percentage for credible authenticators, but only a fool or liar claims to be perfect.

I have no opinion if this Robinson is good or bad. But assuming it is suspect and JSA made a mistake the first time, should they continue to approve a style they now know is suspect?

How many of you think every professional judgement you ever made was 100% correct and given the opportunity would never change anything? Let's see a show of hands.

In full disclosure, I am a professional authenticator who gets paid to provide opinions <GASP>. JSA is one of my clients.

Steve, you took the words right out of my mouth.

How many of those who sell autographs or who give opinions today, would deem those same autographs forgeries that they passed 5, 10 or 15 years ago?

Whether it's Jeter, Mantle, DiMaggio, etc., there are some-variation of autographs that I might have had trouble with five years ago that today I would dismiss in a millisecond and I continue to improve my eye.

That's the key; continuing the knowledge that we have and improving on it.

Great write-up, Steve.

[botn]

The buyer relied on the LOA by JSA that the sig was authentic when making the purchase. Seems either JSA or the house should refund the buyer. The item pictured in the first post is in fact the same item that was in the auction.

Two submissions to JSA and two opinions. If their recent assessment is the right one then yes it is reassuring to know they are willing to correct a previous error but the buyer is now out some money. Do we know if JSA knew they had previously authenticated it for the auction house? If not then that shows how little credibility should be placed in an opinion.

There is an interesting thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218934 on the main board about LOA's and their validity.

[David Atkatz]

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by botn

The buyer relied on the LOA by JSA that the sig was authentic when making the purchase. Seems either JSA or the house should refund the buyer. The item pictured in the first post is in fact the same item that was in the auction.

Two submissions to JSA and two opinions. If their recent assessment is the right one then yes it is reassuring to know they are willing to correct a previous error but the buyer is now out some money. Do we know if JSA knew they had previously authenticated it for the auction house? If not then that shows how little credibility should be placed in an opinion.

There is an interesting thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218934 on the main board about LOA's and their validity.

Thanks for that link, there is a lot of relevance there and a lot of good arguments.

I will echo here what drcy says so well in that thread: These are not really LOAs, they are LOOS, meaning that they communicate opinions only. Furthermore, it would be a mistake for any issuer of these opinions to become insurers of the item or any selling price. As such, JSA should never have to refund any purchase price for anything. There should be loss of credibility of their opinion (and there probably is, though around here it is negligible due to the low baseline opinion of those authenticators).

The auction house is another story. If I were your friend, I would consign the postcard to the original auction and see what transpires.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

The authenticator made their money not once, but twice! Maybe send it to them a third time...


Of course that's a joke. The only issue I take with your post here is that he has not been told that he owns a forgery, he has been told that the authenticator has changed their opinion. Hopefully, the buyer has changed their own opinion of that authenticator.

And who knows, maybe they get that lesson AND an authentic autograph! Anyone want to give their own opinion of this example?

I will reiterate that I think this collector should consign the item to the original auction house.

[mighty bombjack]

I will also add that, while I'd like to hold it in hand, of course, I would inquire about the price if I were in the market for an authentic Robinson. Looks good to me from here.

[whiteymet]

Hi Guys:

Since I started this thread I wanted to comment on a few things said above by others.

Steve: I think you are correct that authenticators should increase their learning. It is best for the hobby and those that need/want authentication services. However, as Greg said, my friend bought this at auction based on JSA saying it was legit. Seems to me once a LOA is issued they should stand behind it in one form or another.

Greg: interesting question if JSA knew they authenticated it before. I have reached out to REA for an answer to that question. I know I left the original LOA with the Robinson PC with REA. I will be interested to find out the answer.

Wayne: I don't think it would be honest for my friend to consign it with the original auction house knowing that JSA now says it is not legit. Others should not have to go through what he is going through.

Curious if anyone has consigned an items with a LOA and also notes in the description that a later examination of the same item by the same authenticator now does not think it authentic. What would buyers think?

Would an auction house with ties to JSA even list an item this way where it sort of throws egg on the face of JSA? Just wondering.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Wayne: I don't think it would be honest for my friend to consign it with the original auction house knowing that JSA now says it is not legit. Others should not have to go through what he is going through.

Why would it be dishonest? He needn't lie to them. He should just explain the situation, adding that he bought the item through them and would now like to sell the item through them. Make them justify their unwillingness to sell the same thing they already sold once.

The item hasn't changed, after all.

Edited to add honest question: Does your friend think the autograph is authentic?

[Lordstan]

So, This type of stuff is certainly frustrating, but mistakes do happen. Now the real test for all involved is what happens next. Will the original AH take the item back now that it failed? If not, will JSA make him whole because he bought it based on their opinion?
I have no issue with someone giving an opinion. However, if you charge top dollar, or any amount for that matter, for your opinion because you promote yourself as an expert, you better be ready to stand behind mistakes you made, even the honest ones, that caused another person financial harm because of a decision that person made based on your opinion. After all, doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, and other have gotten sued and held accountable for problems people have had based on decisions made as a result of their opinions. So why not auction houses?

If either the original AH or JSA do stand up and make the buyer whole, then they deserve the credit for doing so. Let's see what happens.

This situation does bring up an interesting question. What would Sotheby's or Christie's do if they sold a Van Gogh or similar that was later proven to be fake? Would they refund the money or would they refer the person to the expert they used to authenticate the item for restitution? If the AH refunded the money, would they ask for a refund from the authenticator that was used? I wonder what is the standard?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

Good point, David, but that has been part of the evolution of both "autograph authentication" and our own improving-knowledge.

It's part of the arena that will deal in and enjoy.

[Mr. Zipper]

What's missing from this discussion is the concept of risk. Autograph collecting is a risky hobby. There is a tremendous amount of fraud and the barriers to entry are low. Minting a fake coin or printing a counterfeit baseball card is difficult and expensive. Not so with putting a pen to paper.

Every collector should understand that they are accepting some level of risk by participating in this hobby. If your stockbroker recommends an investment in good faith that doesn't do well, do you expect him or her to "make you whole?" If you lose a case in court, do you expect your lawyer to pay the tab?

You can build a solid collection and minimize risk by using all the tools at your disposal: buying from reputable sources, employing a credible authenticator, networking with other knowledgable collectors and using common sense. But there are no guarantees in life!

If anyone would be positioned to make you whole, that would be the seller subject to reasonable limits. They sold and profited from the item.

The authenticator is not a guarantor and does not indemnify. If they make too many mistakes, their reputation and business should suffer accordingly. If you expect TPAs to indemnify, prepare for massive price increases and even more reluctance to "correct past mistakes."

When I first entered this hobby over 20 years ago, a wise and experienced collector told me, "Everyone gets fooled once in a while. It's the price of admission to this hobby. What you want to do is take steps to make that price of admission as low as possible."

[Leon]

Here is a card guys view.

If I sell a card raw and I say it's good, and it turns out to be not good. I give a refund. I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Leon

I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

Leon - I think we were discussing the authenticator reimbursing the buyer for the item itself.

In my opinion, the authenticator refunding or waiving the authentication fee is reasonable.

[sbfinley]

I'm a supporter of the major TPA's, but that being said, if one is going to backtrack on a previous opinion they themselves rendered then they should make the owner whole for what he/she has into the item.

[Leon]

I think I was "skim reading" which isn't very good for debate. So if the seller can't be found, and someone is stuck with an autograph the TPG now says is bad, after they said it was good, why wouldn't they refund the current owner? They have still admitted a mistake. (if the item can be positively identified as the one with the LOA). But maybe this was discussed too.

I do agree with the risk assessment. Anyone into heavy collecting understands there is some risk (or they eventually will).

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Leon - I think we were discussing the authenticator reimbursing the buyer for the item itself.

In my opinion, the authenticator refunding or waiving the authentication fee is reasonable.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think I was "skim reading" which isn't very good for debate. So if the seller can't be found, and someone is stuck with an autograph the TPG now says is bad, after they said it was good, why wouldn't they refund the current owner? They have still admitted a mistake. (if the item can be positively identified as the one with the LOA). But maybe this was discussed too.

I do agree with the risk assessment. Anyone into heavy collecting understands there is some risk (or they eventually will).

Probably best to read all the posts but the auction house is still in business but they are not the ones who should make the buyer whole. The representation that the sig was good came from JSA. When an authenticator decides something they previously assessed as being ok is no longer ok they should buy it back. In the card world that happens when errors are admitted to.

My guess is that REA submitted the item without letting JSA know it was previously authenticated which shows just how little consistency there is in the authentication process with sigs.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by botn

Probably best to read all the posts but the auction house is still in business but they are not the ones who should make the buyer whole. The representation that the sig was good came from JSA. When an authenticator decides something they previously assessed as being ok is no longer ok they should buy it back. In the card world that happens when errors are admitted to.

My guess is that REA submitted the item without letting JSA know it was previously authenticated which shows just how little consistency there is in the authentication process with sigs.

Really?! Can you give an example of PSA or any other authenticator buying a card back for its purchase price? I am not a card guy and the only example I can think of is the trimmed Wagner, but no mistake has been admitted there.

Authenticators are not guarantors nor insurers. They give opinions. I think JSA should refund the original authentication fee, but they should never be on the hook for a purchase price of any item, otherwise we could cook up some new scams at their expense.

I still think the original auction house should be called on to make a judgment. "Please resell this item I purchased through your house previously. If JSA is who you trust to authenticate, then ask them why they changed their minds and then tell me whether you think you profited from an inauthentic item."

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

What's missing from this discussion is the concept of risk...

This is spot on and why I asked this question above: What is the purchaser's opinion of the item itself?

If we are not interested in that question, then we are abdicating the judgement of an item's authenticity wholly to the alphabets, something most people on these boards are loathe to do. If the buyer thinks this is legit, he should go back to the original auction house and say so, telling them to resell it regardless of who has changed their minds (he will probably be unsuccessful, but at least he will be able to stand on principle and have an argument that the auction house, if unable to resell, should refund the original purchase price due to the fact that they profited from what THEY THEMSELVES think is an inauthentic item). If he now thinks the item is bogus, he should admit his acceptance of risk and then look in the mirror and slap himself for abdicating to the alphabets in the first place.

Just my opinion

[mighty bombjack]

I still think the autograph is good, but no one seems to care about that question here, which has become the most fascinating aspect (amongst many) in this for me.

[Lordstan]

IMO, This situation is not about whether the TPAs did a good/bad job with the auto. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve, that TPAs should be learning and not cert styles they know are bad, even if they did so before.

It ultimately comes down to the question of who is financially responsible in a situation where paid expert advice is used to make a decision and it winds up costing the person who paid for the advice something of value(money, time, reputation, etc)?

1)The buyer - If someone buys something relying on someone else's paid opinion and it turns out to be wrong, should the buyer be still held to the "You only paid for their opinion? You still need to be responsible enough to known what you're buying?" Sure, we live in a buyer beware world, but isn't that what the TPAs are supposed to help fix? The TPAs main target should be the person who doesn't know what they are doing, so should we then still hold the buyer at fault for relying on the TPA? Seems to me there have been plenty of doctors who have been held accountable for injuries acquired by their patients based on faulty advice, even if done in good faith. So how much risk is their responsibility?

2)The seller - If a seller sells something without a TPA cert, they usually are willing to take things back if it turns to later to be not authentic, but many sellers seem to have this "Once it certed there are no refunds because if the experts say it's real then you can't give it back based upon authenticity" Ok. So what happens if the authenticator changes their mind? Sure the seller ultimately sold the item, but they also relied on the opinion of the TPA. So how much risk is their responsibility?

3) The TPA - So, if you get paid a lot of money to give an opinion, how much and what type of responsibility do you have for that opinion? In many other fields if your opinion is faulty, even though given in good faith, you are held accountable for that opinion. I think that the minimum is their fee should be refunded, but this situation is trickier. The buyer didn't actually pay the fee. The auction house did. Does that mean he shouldn't get money back because he didn't pay? So how much risk is their responsibility?

Each has some risk and each should take some responsibility. No?

From a financial standpoint, my personal opinion is that the person most liable in this situation is the seller(assuming that the buyer can prove that the item in question is the one that was originally matched with the cert). The AH ultimately sold something that an expert that they use and approve of states the item is bad. To me it doesn't matter if they changed their mind. You live and die by same sword. It's then up to the auction house to seek remedy from the TPA if they see fit and/or stop using their services if they feel they are not providing a valuable service.

From a philosophical standpoint, a big part of why I think the TPA has a large chunk of the responsibility is with the idea that their word is absolute. The TPAs market themselves as the most expert people in the field and charge a big premium for their services. When you do this, it hard to hide behind the it's only an opinion defense. If the TPAs aren't trying to convince people their opinion is a definitive statement of truth, then why do they use wording on their site like this...

From PSA:
http://www.psacard.com/Services/AutographAuthentication
The world's leading autograph authentication experts have been pooled together by PSA/DNA to examine and certify your previously signed autographs. That's not all. PSA/DNA uses state-of-the-art technology to protect your genuine valuable collectible from any foul play. Once an item is deemed genuine, the item is marked with invisible DNA laced ink: naked to the eye but verifiable through a specially calibrated infrared laser. In addition, a Certificate or Letter of Authenticity (LOA) that ties our service with your genuine autograph will accompany your item. With our unique alphanumeric number, any interested party can verify authenticity online even as items change hands time after time.

I am no lawyer, and I know this is marketing verbiage, but this seems to say to me that once they authenticate something, it is genuine. It is stating an absolute which kind of implies a guarantee. Plus, PSA has already set a precedent for taking responsibility for incorrect evaluation with their card grading here...
http://www.psacard.com/About/FinancialGuarantee/
So why should auto be different?

From JSA:
http://www.spenceloa.com/WhyChooseJSA
Peace of mind that your memorabilia is deemed authentic and ready to be sold, passed along to a family member, or cherished forever.

They aren't quite as demonstrative as PSA in their wording regarding the absolute certainty of their opinions, but it's curious that JSA issues a "Letter of Opinion" for rejections, but "Letter of Authenticity" for items deemed to be good. Aren't both opinions? Doesn't issuing a "Letter of Authenticity" imply an absolute rather than opinion?

Now I don't think most of the people on this board think their opinions are absolute, but many of the less educated collectors out there do. Now, I know a lot of the above are marketing tactics, but if any company presents itself and their opinions as the absolute final word, how can they not be held accountable for their mistakes? The question that follows is what I asked above, how and how much do you hold them responsible?

Wayne,
I think the reason no one focused on that question is that the op didn't ask for opinions on the auto. He asked for what his recourse was and what JSA's policy was.

Best,
Mark

[botn]

Really?! Can you give an example of PSA or any other authenticator buying a card back for its purchase price? I am not a card guy and the only example I can think of is the trimmed Wagner, but no mistake has been admitted there.

Both SGC and PSA have bought back cards which were determined later to be altered but having received a grade. The number of cards they have bought back is a very very tiny percentage of what should be bought back. Usually once it is holdered they stand behind their assessment so the guarantee is really just to make the brand appear more legit and give peace of mind to those buying into their opinions.

Authenticators are not guarantors nor insurers. They give opinions.

Apparently so...this is from JSA's site under polices which begs the question as to why anyone would put any credibility into the opinion if they are not willing to stand behind it?

Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time. Therefore, JSA makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to the customer for the opinion rendered by JSA on any submission.

Amazing that someone can rely on a professional's opinion, be harmed by relying on that opinion, and the professional is not held accountable. In many other fields this would be malpractice.

[whiteymet]

Gentlemen:

I am the OP and thank you all for your views/ideas/thoughts/research! Keep it coming

A few points:

Greg asked if JSA knew they had previously authenticated the HOF PC. I reached out to REA and got this response:

"After they rejected the signatures I pointed out to them that they had authenticated them at an earlier date".

I don't know what JSA's response was after being told, I assume they just say they changed their mind.

Someone posted earlier that my friend should consign it to the same AH he got it from with the LOA that is now "bad". I stated earlier I did not think this would be honest. Not many of you responded to that question or my question of it it were to be relisted with info about it being authenticated, then later not, how would buyers view it? I would not expect many collectors would bid on it with this info. But, maybe it would be like the buy the card not the case philosophy. Wayne for one here seems to think the autograph looks good, but will others think the same enough to bid?

Wayne also asks if my friend thinks it is real. My friend is not an autographed collector per se. He just gets nice stuff he likes and depended on JSA to verify it was legit.

I never thought about the original consignor/owner who listed it with the AH being "liable". Does anyone have history of an AH contacting the consignor to get the money back and return the item to him?

My friend happens to be friends with the AH who listed it originally thus his reluctance to "confront them" just yet. I told him I would open it up for discussion here to see if others had some ideas on how to proceed or had a similar situation in the past. Of course in being friends with the AH you would think they would make him whole, but who knows. The other thing is, my friend is an attorney and has successfully sued another AH that has nothing to do with any AH in this case, for a client.

[bn2cardz]

I would contact the original auction house.

They state in their rules:

...we take great pride in only offering "IRONCLAD", "LEAD PIPE", "NO QUESTIONS ASKED" autographs.

Since they make such a statement I would think they would stand behind anything that comes back with a new opinion from the same group in the future.

[Duluth Eskimo]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Really?! Can you give an example of PSA or any other authenticator buying a card back for its purchase price? I am not a card guy and the only example I can think of is the trimmed Wagner, but no mistake has been admitted there.

Authenticators are not guarantors nor insurers. They give opinions. I think JSA should refund the original authentication fee, but they should never be on the hook for a purchase price of any item, otherwise we could cook up some new scams at their expense.

I still think the original auction house should be called on to make a judgment. "Please resell this item I purchased through your house previously. If JSA is who you trust to authenticate, then ask them why they changed their minds and then tell me whether you think you profited from an inauthentic item."

I agree that the original auction house is the person to talk to, but PSA has backed up their initial opinion at least a few times for me when they discovered the had made a mistake with an auction letter. Most of the time they would give me credit on my new order for the amount I was out. I have not heard of JSA doing this though.

[jad22]

"Best Wishes" does not appear to be written. Many of the other Robinson examples have that. Both black and white and the gold.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by Leon

Here is a card guys view.

If I sell a card raw and I say it's good, and it turns out to be not good. I give a refund. I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

So one of my old friends used to be in the music industry and has pictures with all these celebrities. He used to work marketing. One of the people he worked with was Michael Jackson. He has photos with him and had tons of signatures. He never parted with ANY of these but I was able to pry one away that seems like it got stuck to the backing of the frame from heat and wouldn't come off. Still cost be 500 to get it from him. I knew without a shadow of a doubt this thing is real. I go to JSA and James says..."Unfortunately this is a bad forgery". I don't understand how they can say that to something that's real. I'm no expert at all with autographs (FARRRRRR from it) but stuff like this gets me so angry.

With the Jackie, they shoudl 100% refund it! no questions asked. and JSA should pay something too. just my 3 cents.

[RichardSimon]

Just a couple of points I want to make:
1 - In my opinion the seller of the item should always be responsible for a refund if the item comes into question. The seller has the money from the buyer. The seller hired the authenticator and should bear the ultimate responsibility.
2 - In my opinion this autograph is authentic.
3 - Just to post a second opinion about this autograph, I showed the scan to the best person on the planet on Jackie autographs (in my opinion), he is a private collector with a huge collection of Jackie autographs and his opinion is that he believes the autograph is authentic.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

I agree that the original auction house is the person to talk to, but PSA has backed up their initial opinion at least a few times for me when they discovered the had made a mistake with an auction letter. Most of the time they would give me credit on my new order for the amount I was out. I have not heard of JSA doing this though.

Wow, that is pretty standup of them, but I want to ask: When you say "the amount I was out," are you talking about the purchase price of an item, or of services previously rendered by PSA? And are you talking about cards (PSA) or autographs (PSA/DNA)? I'm not aware of any "auction letters" for cards, but I'm not really a card guy. Thanks.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

So one of my old friends used to be in the music industry and has pictures with all these celebrities. He used to work marketing. One of the people he worked with was Michael Jackson. He has photos with him and had tons of signatures. He never parted with ANY of these but I was able to pry one away that seems like it got stuck to the backing of the frame from heat and wouldn't come off. Still cost be 500 to get it from him. I knew without a shadow of a doubt this thing is real. I go to JSA and James says..."Unfortunately this is a bad forgery". I don't understand how they can say that to something that's real. I'm no expert at all with autographs (FARRRRRR from it) but stuff like this gets me so angry.

With the Jackie, they shoudl 100% refund it! no questions asked. and JSA should pay something too. just my 3 cents.

If he indeed called it a forgery, than he was overstepping, but these companies are good at saying "likely not genuine" and then giving a laundry list of generic reasons why they may or may not have deemed it such. It is maddening, clearly so when this message is sent to someone who (even stronger than n the case you give) actually got the item IP. However, we have gone through this on these boards before; we all acknowledge that no authenticator is perfect, and that false negatives are desirable to false positives.

Enjoy your MJ autograph in your knowledge that it is real. It is just going to be difficult to sell for a good price if the "experts" don't like it, unfortunately.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Just a couple of points I want to make:
1 - In my opinion the seller of the item should always be responsible for a refund if the item comes into question. The seller has the money from the buyer. The seller hired the authenticator and should bear the ultimate responsibility.
2 - In my opinion this autograph is authentic.
3 - Just to post a second opinion about this autograph, I showed the scan to the best person on the planet on Jackie autographs (in my opinion), he is a private collector with a huge collection of Jackie autographs and his opinion is that he believes the autograph is authentic.

Hi Richard:

Assuming that the autograph is real how would you suggest my friend move forward if he wants to sell the item and not confront the AH or JSA?

Is it "ethical" to relist with the "old" LOA as some here have suggested? If so do all AH's resubmit even with a LOA as REA did in this case?

Thanks for your input.

Fred

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

If he indeed called it a forgery, than he was overstepping, but these companies are good at saying "likely not genuine" and then giving a laundry list of generic reasons why they may or may not have deemed it such. It is maddening, clearly so when this message is sent to someone who (even stronger than n the case you give) actually got the item IP. However, we have gone through this on these boards before; we all acknowledge that no authenticator is perfect, and that false negatives are desirable to false positives.

Enjoy your MJ autograph in your knowledge that it is real. It is just going to be difficult to sell for a good price if the "experts" don't like it, unfortunately.

Thanks I will! Appreciate the input

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Is it "ethical" to relist with the "old" LOA as some here have suggested?

I want to be clear that this is not what I'm suggesting (not sure if you think it is but I think I'm the only one who has said to send it back to the original house). I just think he should resell through the original auction house now that REA is not an option. Be honest about the whole thing and see how they react. If THEY want to relist it, they will, but it seems they will have to resubmit it to JSA (I'm assuming that's their policy, and they can't use the old auction LOA because I think those are one-time-only). Maybe third time's a charm! If they say they won't sell it because it's fake, he's got them in a bit of a bind...

[mighty bombjack]

What I think would be unethical (or at least would make me uncomfortable enough to avoid doing) would be to list this on eBay with the auction LOA AND a scan of the original auction house listing and no further information. That would make any people who happen to value JSA's certs falsely believe that a full LOA would be a cinch, and I'd bet that at this point your friend would make the most profit this way. It would be dishonesty through omission, however.

[Duluth Eskimo]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Wow, that is pretty standup of them, but I want to ask: When you say "the amount I was out," are you talking about the purchase price of an item, or of services previously rendered by PSA? And are you talking about cards (PSA) or autographs (PSA/DNA)? I'm not aware of any "auction letters" for cards, but I'm not really a card guy. Thanks.

No, I am talking about the hammer price plus the juice. The last one was a Hollywood group of about 5 items of one specific actor. I also deal in golf related signatures and this was a cross collectible to the golf guys otherwise I should have known better. I submitted for COA's as my buyer only buys items with PSA or JSA and PSA said they made a mistake on these items. Credited me the full total which was fine as my order was more than that anyhow. Not sure if they would have paid money, but I thought that was very fair of them. Not something that comes out of my mouth about PSA very often.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Hi Richard:

Assuming that the autograph is real how would you suggest my friend move forward if he wants to sell the item and not confront the AH or JSA?

Is it "ethical" to relist with the "old" LOA as some here have suggested? If so do all AH's resubmit even with a LOA as REA did in this case?

Thanks for your input.

Fred

Sorry but I do not have an answer for that. Advice on this issue is not an easy thing to give. It is up to your friend to decide for himself.

[whiteymet]

Hi All

This card is now being offered in the BST autograph forum. Take a look and PM me if interested.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...42#post1514642

Thanks,

Fred

[brooklynbaseball]

Many years ago, included in an auction was a "holy grail" signed item in a signed set I collect. I won the auction for a bit over $7k and was thrilled. The one thing that bothered me was there is a collector I am in touch with that ALWAYS outbid me on items like this, as his funding far surpasses mine. I contacted him and he gave me the following reason why he passed on bidding (winning) the item. When Jim Spence worked for PSA, he had authenticated the item, and psa had applied a sticker and slabbed the item. When the owner submitted the item to the present auction house, psa decided they did not believe the card was indeed authentic. THEY PAID the owner $2k to remove the card from the holder and remove the sticker. I was shown the stub from the check paid by psa. The auction house then sent the card to JSA, who slabbed the card again. NO MENTION was made of any of this by the auction house. I decided to pass on the item, and the auction house, when faced with the information, cancelled the transaction and supposedly sold the item to the underbidder. It's just how things work in this, and many other hobbies, honor doe$ rarely exist.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by brooklynbaseball

Many years ago, included in an auction was a "holy grail" signed item in a signed set I collect. I won the auction for a bit over $7k and was thrilled. The one thing that bothered me was there is a collector I am in touch with that ALWAYS outbid me on items like this, as his funding far surpasses mine. I contacted him and he gave me the following reason why he passed on bidding (winning) the item. When Jim Spence worked for PSA, he had authenticated the item, and psa had applied a sticker and slabbed the item. When the owner submitted the item to the present auction house, psa decided they did not believe the card was indeed authentic. THEY PAID the owner $2k to remove the card from the holder and remove the sticker. I was shown the stub from the check paid by psa. The auction house then sent the card to JSA, who slabbed the card again. NO MENTION was made of any of this by the auction house. I decided to pass on the item, and the auction house, when faced with the information, cancelled the transaction and supposedly sold the item to the underbidder. It's just how things work in this, and many other hobbies, honor doe$ rarely exist.

Must be more to the story for PSA to shell out that kind of dough!

[Exhibitman]

Looks like the OP is showing a so-called auction LOA. Those GDMF pieces of garbage are not worth the paper they are written on. All they are is a TPA marketing tool. Says right on them that it isn't definitive and they may not even have looked at the item. I bought a signed card with a JSA auction LOA. JSA refused to honor it because it expired. I said fine, lets do a full LOA anyway. They rejected the card. Cost me eighty bucks. My own research indicated that the signature was good. Another TPA agreed and slabbed it.

[Leon]

Hey Adam,
My opinion is the signature is good too. You can send me 80 bucks please . With all of these conversations it's interesting that there are so many dollars flying into the autograph arena. It almost seems like it's gambling. And I thought the grading of cards was bad....

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Looks like the OP is showing a so-called auction LOA. Those GDMF pieces of garbage are not worth the paper they are written on. All they are is a TPA marketing tool. Says right on them that it isn't definitive and they may not even have looked at the item. I bought a signed card with a JSA auction LOA. JSA refused to honor it because it expired. I said fine, lets do a full LOA anyway. They rejected the card. Cost me eighty bucks. My own research indicated that the signature was good. Another TPA agreed and slabbed it.

[sicollector1954]

Hey Brooklyn…that HOF "Goose" front signed was never slabbed the first time. It was just submitted to auction along with others in a complete collection at the time. PSA did not have the COA when it was presented to them….they only had the card. The owner still had the COA. They ended up paying to get the certificate into their hands for their mistake which was mutually agreed upon. The HOF plaque was then taken to JSA who honored it again as genuine the same way they did when they worked for PSA. The card was then apparently slabbed (was a new thing) and sold by a major auction house and the money was used to help put a daughter through college. There were several conference calls involved with Mr. O about this issue/problem and a lot of strong pressure put on the owner of the card by PSA to return the certificate to them so they could "perhaps destroy" it but in the end, they had to pay for their mistake. At one point nearing the conclusion of this mess, they changed their minds about payment (top two people) after it was mutually agreed to with an additional phone call only to find out that a written copy of the agreement signed by another PSA employee to pay for this mistake existed and then they ultimately changed their minds in a hurry and payment was sent. A lot of stress and sleepless nights to be sure. So there is in fact a previous similar situation that has taken place involving JSA but from the other end of the spectrum.

[RichardSimon]

Unrelated to the primary issue but an incident that is worthy of posting here.
I sold a non sports autograph of a prominent person to a dealer who subscribes to my mailing list. He is a regular buyer who submits all his autographs to TPA.
The autograph was declined by PSA. I was certain it was authentic. I showed a scan of the autograph to a close friend/dealer who is well known on this board. He agreed with me about the authenticity of the autograph.
The buyer said if I would cover the cost of a second rejection he would submit the autograph to JSA. If the autograph came back authentic he would pay the authentication fee.
The autograph was authenticated by JSA.
Is one authentication service better than the other? I don't think so.
Should TPA opinions be held up as the hobby "holy grail?" Obviously not.

As Linda Richman would say "Discuss amongst yourselves."